Here are the model descriptions and the strengths and weaknesses, according to the CAVS report.

Modified three school system

School of Arts and Humanities: one dean, one associate dean

  1. American Studies
  2. Art
  3. Communication and Philosophy
  4. English
  5. Film Studies
  6. History
  7. Holocaust and Genocide Studies
  8. Journalism
  9. Modern Languages and Cultures
  10. Music
  11. Theatre and Dance
  12. Women and Gender Studies
  13. Cohen Center
  14. Redfern Arts Center
  15. Thorne-Sagendorph Gallery

School of Sciences and Social Sciences: one dean, one associate dean

  1. Biology
  2. Chemistry
  3. Computer Science
  4. Economics and Political Science
  5. Environmental Studies
  6. General Science
  7. Geography
  8. Geology
  9. Physics
  10. Management
  11. Mathematics
  12. Psychology
  13. Sociology/Anthropology/ Criminal Justice Studies
  14. Small Business Development Center
  15. Math Center

School of Professional Studies: one dean, two associate deans

The division of responsibility among the associate deans would need to be determined.

  1. Child Development Center
  2. Education
  3. Educator Preparation (certification, placement, etc.)
  4. Architecture
  5. Health Science
  6. Human Performance and Movement Sciences
  7. Nursing
  8. Safety and Occupational Health
  9. Sustainable Product Design
  10. Dietetic Internship

Library: one dean

  1. Library Staff
  2. Academic Technology
  3. Information Studies Minor

 

Strengths: 

  • This model preserves distinctive schools of Arts and Humanities and Sciences and Social Sciences, while speaking to the concerns of Professional and Graduate Studies. It maintains some stability in the college at a time of significant change, while addressing pressing needs for reorganization of PGS as articulated by member of PGS and Academic Affairs staff.
  • It allows for both Arts & Humanities and Sciences & Social Sciences to continue to each be represented by a single dean. Also, Arts and Humanities retains its one full-time associate dean and Sciences and Social Sciences will replace its two assistant deans with one full-time associate dean.
  • It acknowledges the currently heavy workload of deans and addresses it in a uniform way across the schools by utilizing support from full-time associate deans without shifting workload from the dean’s office to chairs.
  • This model would allow education and professional programs to remain together, while addressing what was identified as the heavy workload of the current PGS dean’s office by providing for two associate deans (not members of the KSCEA).
  • Pending contractual negotiations, the associate deans in all schools could perhaps share some of the dean’s faculty and staff evaluative responsibilities.
  • It creates two associate deans in the School of Professional Studies that formerly was headed by two deans, thereby reducing the number of full deans by one. It also reduces the aggregate number of assistant, associate, and full deans from nine to eight, and lowers total deans, by one.
  • The model is the simplest and perhaps, ultimately, most cost-efficient solution to what were identified among constituents as the major structural problems in Academic Affairs. In the School of Professional Studies, it provides for two associate deans to do the work of one current full dean and assistant dean which could be easily and rapidly implemented with little additional cost to the College. It requires minimal contractual changes and negotiations.
  • It allows for a Professional Studies structure that creates a broader sense of community among students, staff, and faculty rather than simply splitting the former PGS into two schools (which CAVS initially explored as a model).
  • The other major change that accompanies all of our proposed models is that Continuing Education and Graduate Studies will both report directly to the provost. They will no longer be part of the School of Professional Studies, which will create a more manageable workload for the Dean of Professional Studies. Furthermore, recognizing that both Continuing Education and Graduate Studies serve the entire College, having those offices report to the provost will further rationalize the structure of Academic Affairs.

Weaknesses: 

  • It ends the role of assistant deans, a position that carries teaching responsibilities and was originally envisioned as a way for faculty to “sample” administrative roles without losing their tenure.
  • For those who have concerns with the current three school model of the College, it does not fundamentally alter that structure.
  • CAVS had some difficulty imagining how to split the responsibilities of the two associate deans in Professional Studies. We initially imagined one responsible for Education and one responsible for Allied Health and Professional Studies. However, we recognized that one associate dean would be overseeing one department. While the Education Program is complex and has many students, we believe that the potential division of responsibilities among the associate deans requires further study and may perhaps be defined by particular areas of responsibility (e.g. accreditation), rather than by departments.

Two school model

School of Liberal Arts and Sciences: one dean, two associate deans

Associate Dean for Arts and Humanities

  1. American Studies
  2. Art
  3. Communication and Philosophy
  4. English
  5. Film Studies
  6. History
  7. Holocaust and Genocide Studies
  8. Journalism
  9. Modern Languages and Cultures
  10. Music
  11. Theatre and Dance
  12. Women and Gender Studies
  13. Redfern Arts Center
  14. Thorne Gallery
  15. Cohen Center

Associate Dean for Sciences and Social Sciences

  1. Biology
  2. Chemistry
  3. Computer Science
  4. Economics and Political Science
  5. Environmental Studies
  6. General Science
  7. Geography
  8. Geology
  9. Physics
  10. Management
  11. Mathematics
  12. Psychology
  13. Sociology/Anthropology/ Criminal Justice Studies
  14. Small Business Development Center
  15. Math Center

School of Professional Studies: one dean, two associate deans

The division of responsibility among the two associate deans would need to be determined.

  1. Child Development Center
  2. Education
  3. Educator Preparation (certification, placement, etc.)
  4. Health Science
  5. Human Performance and Movement Sciences
  6. Nursing
  7. Architecture
  8. Safety and Occupational Health
  9. Sustainable Product Design
  10. Dietetic Internship

Library: one dean

  1. Library Staff
  2. Academic Technology
  3. Information Studies Minor

 

Strengths:

This model consolidates three schools into two. It creates a single school of Arts and Sciences which is very common at liberal arts institutions and universities. It is also comparable to the structure of some of our comparators such as Eastern Connecticut State University. The structure of this school could foster multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration between faculty and staff from Arts and Humanities and Science and Social Science under the rubric of one dean and a single school curriculum committee.

  • It would allow Arts and Humanities and Sciences and Social Sciences to be represented by respective associate deans who can advocate for their distinctive needs.
  • It would allow Arts and Humanities and Sciences and Social Sciences to combine administrative support and avoid administrative redundancies.
  • While it does not preserve the current situation of having two deans in PGS, the new School of Professional Studies would have two full-time associate deans. This model would allow education and professional programs to remain together, while helping to address what was identified as the heavy workload of the current PGS dean’s office by providing for two associate deans, as is the case in the modified three school model.
  • This model reduces the total number of assistant, associate, and full deans from nine to seven. Thus, it reduces the total number of all ranks of deans the most and it reduces the number of full deans from five to three.
  • Given that PGS has significant numbers of majors and shortages of full time faculty to serve them fully, allowing the former School of PGS to be organized as one of only two schools on campus gives them a stronger position in making arguments for resources.
  • It could potentially foster voluntary combinations of departments and programs that would cross the former school boundaries.

Weaknesses: 

  • Like the modified three school model, this one does not address the concerns of some PGS members who believe the school should be broken up into more than one school. Workload for the dean of Professional Studies would remain significant in terms of professional certification, accreditation, etc. Also, the school would continue to have a disproportionate number of full-time faculty to majors in which certain departments have a difficult time delivering major curriculum. However, this would be true of departments in any of the models and is an issue at the departmental level.
  • While presenting challenges to Professional Studies, it would also present difficulties to a very large school of Arts and Sciences. According to the KSC 2016-17 Factbook, in fall 2016, Sciences and Social Sciences taught a total of 25,092 credit hours and Arts and Humanities taught 19,137. This would mean that a school of Arts and Sciences would teach potentially in a semester a disproportionate number of student credit hours (e.g. close to 45,000) compared to PGS which taught 16,018 in fall 2016. This suggests that scheduling and managing twenty-nine distinctive programs would be a challenge for one dean and two associate deans of Arts and Sciences.1
  • It would not allow for independent separate schools of Arts and Humanities and Sciences/Social Sciences, something that members of Arts and Humanities in particular stated that they deeply valued.
  • As is the case with the Modified Three School Model, CAVS recommends further research and consultation about the division of responsibilities among the two associate deans of Professional Studies.

One college model

One dean of the faculty, six associate deans

Associate Dean of Humanities

  1. American Studies
  2. Communication and Philosophy
  3. English
  4. History
  5. Holocaust and Genocide Studies
  6. Journalism
  7. Modern Languages and Cultures
  8. Women and Gender Studies
  9. Cohen Center

Associate Dean of Arts

  1. Art
  2. Film Studies
  3. Music
  4. Theatre and Dance
  5. Redfern Arts Center
  6. Thorne Gallery

Associate Dean of Sciences

  1. Biology
  2. Chemistry
  3. Computer Science
  4. Environmental Studies
  5. General Science
  6. Geology
  7. Physics
  8. Mathematics
  9. Math Center

Associate Dean of Social Sciences

  1. Economics and Political Science
  2. Geography
  3. Management
  4. Psychology
  5. Sociology/Anthropology/ Criminal Justice Studies
  6. Small Business Development Center

Associate Dean of Education

  1. Child Development Center
  2. Education
  3. Educator Preparation (certification, placement, etc.)

Associate Dean of Allied Health Sciences and Professional Studies

  1. Architecture
  2. Health Science
  3. Human Performance and Movement Sciences
  4. Nursing
  5. Safety and Occupational Health
  6. Sustainable Product Design
  7. Dietetic Internship

Library: one dean (Reports to provost)

  1. Library Staff
  2. Academic Technology
  3. Information Studies Minor

 

Strengths: 

  • It creates a college-wide identity that does not have distinctive schools. However, disciplinary areas are recognized and organized under associate deans. Indeed, the identification of six distinctive areas facilitates disciplines with similar methodological approaches working closely together.
  • The creation of one single college allows for enhanced multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration among all departments and academic units. Additionally, this work would be facilitated by simply having one curriculum committee. The Senate Curriculum Committee could oversee all campus curriculum in consultation with departments, associate deans and the Dean of Faculty.
  • There would be a single dean responsible for all programmatic budgets in the former schools allowing for more efficient administration and a single person making decisions about hiring, start-up packages, adjunct budgets, etc.
  • We propose that the dean be primarily responsible for personnel issues and have final say in budgets and scheduling.
  • We propose that the associate deans would primarily be responsible for disciplinary area budgets and scheduling. Given the potentially heavy work load of the dean, associate deans may have to assume some responsibility for faculty evaluation, but this is a contractual issue.
  • The model would allow for administrative coordination that avoids unnecessary duplication of work across the former schools.
  • This is a form of organization utilized by many smaller liberal arts institutions whose enrollments approximate those of our target enrollment of about 4200.
  • The model reduces the number of full school deans from four to one. The model reduces (as do the above other models) the number of overall school assistant, associate, and full deans from nine to eight.

Weaknesses: 

  • This model creates a dean of the faculty role that raises questions about overlap with the responsibilities of the provost. There would have to be further clarification regarding the distinctiveness and roles of the dean and provost in areas such as evaluation, etc.
  • The model would require a clear and further revision of job descriptions for the responsibilities of the dean and the associate deans (and possibly department chairs). As noted above, the committee has suggestions for how these duties may be allocated, but it would require further research and may require contractual changes.
  • Faculty will be a step further removed from direct reporting to their school dean if their chairs report directly to the associate deans.
  • Many faculty may be concerned that the integrity of their fields or distinctive academic needs would not be as well-represented by a single dean of faculty as in the case of deans of the previous schools. In this regard, there would be a heavy reliance placed on the associate deans to advocate for faculty in their groups.
  • This model does not address the concerns about developing enhanced administrative support that have been identified by PGS.
  • Potentially, this model will be heavily reliant upon KSC faculty stepping into the associate dean roles. Faculty may not have the requisite experience to fill these roles, considering that they are akin to the work the full deans of schools used to do under the previous three school system. Moreover, there could be a high turnover in these positions, which will not provide the administrative stability that KSC requires.
  • Similarly, external hires may experience a lengthy learning curve and also increases the potential for frequent turnover in associate dean positions, which faculty mentioned as a drawback of the current structure.
  • The consolidation of the work of four current school deans into one dean of faculty could make that role daunting. This consolidation also reduces the number of Academic Affairs deans from the current five to two, which could diminish the influence of direct advocates for related disciplines within Academic Affairs and on campus in general.